Stay out of the Bushes

by Selwyn Duke12/9/15The Best Reason Not to Vote for an Establishment Candidate • Would you hire someone for an important job if he admitted right off the bat he couldn’t perform one of the basic functions of the job?

Our federal-government behemoth is involved in countless things not within its constitutional purview, from orchestrating health care to ruling on marriage to regulating college sports (Title IX) to efforts to ensure “diversity” around the nation. In fact, economist Dr. Walter Williams estimates that approximately two-thirds of the federal budget concerns matters in which Washington has no constitutional warrant to be involved. One of the handful of legitimate functions of the feds, however, is to secure the border and tend to im/migration — this includes ensuring that foreign aliens aren’t in our country illegally.

Yet what do we hear, or have heard in the past, from every prominent establishment candidate? It’s always some variation on what Ohio governor John “Can’t do” Kasich said in the November Fox News GOP debate: “C’mon, folks, we all know you can’t pick them [illegals] up and ship them back across the border.”

Of course, you don’t have to quite do that; as I’ve explained before, you can get them to self-deport by removing the carrot, by taking their benefits and jobs away. But that’s not the point. It rather is that every GOPe, body-snatched pod-person sings the same tune:

It can’t be done.

We know we’re not gonna’ be deporting 11 million undocumented immigrants Democrats.

Get real!

Yeah, let’s get real: these candidates are admitting from the get-go that they can’t perform the job for which they’re interviewing. And why would you consider hiring a person to be chief executive of the U.S. if he concedes that he can’t fulfill one of the basic responsibilities of the chief executive — enforcing the law? It’s a bit like having hired someone to head the space program in the ‘60s even after he opined that it was ridiculous to think we could get to the moon.

Reach for the stars, and, even falling short, we may at least get to the moon. The current crop of GOPe no-can-do nattering nabobs won’t even shoot for the treetops, and they should hear only one thing from the voters. As Donald Trump would say, “You’re fired!”

10 Responses to Stay out of the Bushes

While it’s probably true that the state of the laws today wouldn’t allow us to deport the 11 million illegal aliens (particularly if there are actually a lot more than that, as Ann Coulter reasonably believes), at least within a single presidential term, there’s a lot we can do. We can make a good start, we can do everything we can to discourage them from staying (much less coming), we can secure the borders (though if the second step worked well enough, this might not be necessary). The most important thing is to turn off the spigot. That must be the sole priority, since even John Kasich and Jeb Bush (the two most worthless candidates) would continue some deportations.

But the reason the Beltway Bandits, and those candidates in thrall to them, can’t do all this is because their donors don’t want it and have told them not to.

Don’t worry about Carly. She can’t help but do anything but disappoint. She’s not in the least a conservative. I know a few conservatives who got on her bandwagon quickly. My Spider Senses were telling me otherwise. I knew Palin was a good woman in a pinch. This one, however, I spotted coming from a mile away.

One thing such progressive or liberal Republicans are very good at is copping the speech of conservatives…just enough to fool us come election time. Granted, we conservatives are like the lonely woman on a bar stool just looking for some meaning and confirmation in her life who falls for the first nice suit and line given her.

We long for the passion of a real conservative. But all we tend to get are the date-rape candidates such as Carly.

Politics involves winning, and I do like Fiorina’s demonstrated ability to take down Hillary. She might make a good running mate for a reliable conservative such as Ted Cruz or . . . er . . . does anyone know of anyone else still running who can be considered at all a reliable conservative?

I am not at all sure Carly has what it takes to win. She had her 15 minutes of fame and has been on the slide since.

As to reliability, we are talking about politicians here. While I favor Cruz, I understand he is still a POLITICIAN, i.e. a species which cannot be relied on.

Of course, his history gives us hope that he is more reliable than the others.

But as of yet, the only thing I believe I can rely on is that Trump is apolitical wreaking ball and will continue to be so if he wishes to win. He has changed the political and social narrative in a way which I would have thought impossible six months back.

I believe he has set the stage for a major change in the Republican party. If he wins the nomination and the establishment does not support him, a large percentage of the establishment will be pushed out of the party. Trump is attracting non-country club types and they will not be kind to the plutocrats.

If he wins the nomination and the establishment supports him, he will still not be beholden to them like other candidates. Thus he will have a greater latitude to do what he thinks right. And from what he has said so far, much of what he wishes to do will hurt the pocketbooks of the plutocrats.

If he is screwed by the establishment and decides to run as an independent, the Republican party will be slaughtered in the election. The base will leave the Reps in droves.

This is not to say that the establishment types will disappear. Coach roaches will always be with us.

But as of yet, the only thing I believe I can rely on is that Trump is apolitical wreaking ball and will continue to be so if he wishes to win.

You know, we have all those fancy high-paid conservative writers and they haven’t touched this kind of concise description of Trump (with the possible exception of Rush).

Right now, I think Trump’s popularity stems from his stand on immigration, being a pop-culture icon (for who really wants an actual president in this day and age of 24/7 entertainment?), and being the recipient of the “none of the above” sentiment.

Indeed, I think the Republican Establishment will be with us as long as the roaches. But they can at least be momentarily shoved aside. But in their heart of hearts, they’re all hoping for the utmost failure from Trump so that never again will their supposed infallible political wisdom be questioned.

As Rush noted, many of the Establishment Republicans would prefer Hillary.

One suggestion I’ve seen is that Trump’s support is not so much conservatives but Jscksonians, many of them blue-collar (the old Reagan Democrats, though I don’t know if anyone has made that specific point).

Realistically, Trump can only run 3rd party if he drops out very early. Most states have various forms of “sore loser” laws designed to prevent a primary loser from running independently. He could probably only run in a few states.

you can get them to self-deport by removing the carrot, by taking their benefits and jobs away.

Put a few CEO’s in shackles and frog march them out of their offices in front of the TV cameras and watch how quickly the jobs dry up. Of course, this will never happen as we live in a time of universal deceit.

We are living in a “Wayang” shadow play in which that which is seen by the public is staged and has little to do with what the puppet masters are doing behind the stage.

The term “Wayang Kulit” is of Malay origin linguistically and refers to a puppet theater popular in S.E. Asia. It is commonly used to describe staged happenings, particularly those by politicians, which are known to be a diversion from what is really happening.

One suggestion I’ve seen is that Trump’s support is not so much conservatives but Jscksonians, many of them blue-collar (the old Reagan Democrats, though I don’t know if anyone has made that specific point).

Timothy, one of the things the Republican Party suffers from is that they have let the Left define them. Image is everything, particularly today. It wouldn’t matter if Jesus Christ himself ran under the “R” label. He’d be branded with all the caricatures the Left has fashioned for the right and for Republicans.

For better or for worse, Trump is not tarred (yet) by that same association. Although many of these disingenuous (read: lying sacks of excrement) politicians (R or D) run as an “outsider,” few of them are. But Trump genuinely is. And beneath the politically correct screen that most people fly under, I would imagine that a large percentage of regular Democrat voters are aghast at some of the truly stupid things that Obama and Kerry have said about the imminent threat of Islam, among other society- and job-killing things.

Trump can tap into that and other stuff without the baggage (unfair though much of it is) of being a Republican or conservative. And I don’t think Trump would ever run third party. He’s in it to win it. And a third party stands little chance in hell at the moment of winning anything.

An article at First Things (linked to on Hot Air, which is how I came across it) looks into the question of Trump’s appeal, relating it to the success of Marine Le Pen in France. Note that Le Pen, like Trump, is a statist nationalist, not what we would call a conservative. But the failure of the establishments in these nations to protect the interests of ordinary citizens created an opening for nationalist populism.

Those who favor smaller government and the national interest must find a way to serve the needs of ordinary wage-earners (the blue-collar types who are the heart of the Trump voters). There are also some very interesting responses — including one who pointed out that any free-market nationalist would have to come out against immigration as long as we have a welfare state and a stagnant economy. The link is:

Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.